Hi Laurent,
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:59 AM, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Monday, 15 January 2018 08:55:29 EET Simon Horman wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 03:29:48PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>> > On Friday, 12 January 2018 12:13:18 EET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >> As this is a new binding, please use "renesas,<soc>-lvds".
>> >
>> > I've recently been thinking that we made the wrong choice, <ip>-<soc>
>> > would be better in my opinion as it aligns with <ip>-<version>, but it's
>> > too late to change that, so I'll change the order here.
>>
>> My recollection is that in the beginning we had a bit of a mixture but
>> leaned towards <ip>-<soc>, which made sense in my opinion. However, after
>> some discussion it was agreed that the best-practice for upstream was to
>> use <soc>-<ip>. Unless that situation has changed lets stock with using
>> <soc>-<ip> for new bindings.
>
> Sure, that was my plan, and it seems I failed to explain it clearly. I too
> believe that <ip>-<soc> would be better, but as we have standardized on <soc>-
> <ip> and as there's no strong reason to reconsider that decision at the
> moment, the next version of this patch will use <soc>-<ip>. It was a mistake
> in v1, not an attempt to change what we had agreed on.
Note that I believe you have to consider the full tuple "<vendor>,<soc>-<ip>"
to see the light: <soc> is more closely tied to <vendor>, than <ip> is.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
